untaken_name:You never heard of a guy named Joseph Stalin, did you? He was an atheist dedicated to ending religion.

Stalin and Hitler were not atheists. Not once did they rant in any of their speeches that their enemies must be eliminated for the sake of secular humanism and rational inquiry. Rather, what they did was establish systems of moral absolutes with state theocracies, oppressive social obedience and strict political doctrine replacing scripture. Essentially: Political ideology as church, with themselves as God.

The whole "who committed more atrocities" argument is a mutually assured destruction debate tactic anyway. Do you really want to count them all up? Christians wiped out two entire continents and an entire race of people. And not only did they commit genocide to others, they committed genocide to themselves (the greatest enemy to Christians has always been other Christians: Quite possibly up to 50 million in just the wars of the Reformation....20 million in the 30 years war alone). But do these numbers make any argument better? Do you feel better about your side if you can tally it up and show that your beliefs only killed a few million less than their beliefs? Does that make it more right?

Today's Christians should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of Christianity, just as today's atheists should not have to answer for every past atrocity done in the name of atheism (which is technically none...but even if you threw in Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot or anyone else who wasn't Christian or an atheist, that still doesn't justify either argument).

douchebag/hater:I say this as an ex-believer:As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

Atheists are as bad as fundementalists?

Number of laws enacted to force atheist behaviour upon others: ZeroNumber of planes flown into buildings in the name of atheism: ZeroNumber of atheists who have bombed or shot or otherwise maimed athiests in Northern Island for not sharing the exact smae version of atheism: ZeroNumber of times atheists have threatened me with eternal torture: ZeroNumber of people discriminated against because of what it says in the atheist holy book: ZeroNumber of witches tortured to death in the name of atheism: ZeroNumber of wars started specifically to spread the word of atheism: ZeroNumber of times atheists have knocked on my door and preached at me: ZeroNumber of times atheists have tried to disrupt a funeral to spread a message of hate and intolerance: ZeroNumber of mutilations performed in the name of atheism: ZeroNumber of honour killings by atheists: Zero

But yes, they are clearly just as bad as the religious fundementalists.

douchebag/hater:And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

If we made fun of Mohammed then christians would end up agreeing with us. Where is the fun in that.

In all seriousness, if you weren't mentally challenged you would realize that the majority of religious people that post on fark are christian and not Muslim. It is the same reason you find more viruses for windows and not macs. More people use windows. Going for the larger audience here.

As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

So both sides are bad, vote religious? Cuz thats what it sounds like.

Except its not true. One side has myths and fairy tales, the other has facts, science, and logic.

No one is going to tell you what to believe, but the facts will remain the facts, regardless.

Actually I'm wrong, religious people often tell you what to believe. It's why they're usually so insufferable.

I've actually had some experience with tje religious right, and it is scary. When I was a kid, my parents, who are educated and intelligent joined a pretty crazy church. My parent's issue was that they were 100% against abortion, so they joined a place that addressed that without anticipating all the rest of the derp that would come with it.

Anyway 6-year-old me comes home from Sunday school with a pamphlet saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I remember hoping that was true because it would be awesome, but it didn't match what I had learned on school so I went to my dad for clarification.

Let's just say we never went back to that church again. My parents are still religious, and I don't press it because it makes them happy. Also, they are the "good" kind who try to help their community rather than spewing BS.

Also Bush II was the last straw for their support for the right. They both switched their registration to Democrat in 2004.

What I like is how the complaints in the comments section, that the author didn't differentiate between DERP brand X and DERP brand Y, but rather lumped them both together under the general heading of DERP.

I drunk what:has any science occurred in this thread or article that merits a discussion? i'm game

Here's my thoughts on 1-10.

1. Rocks move around over time, but leave evidence of being disturbed when they do. Examples in the story sound like hoaxing. Science scores a point here.

2. Biology and stars are not bound to the 2nd. Neither side can claim to know why. No one scores a point.

3. The speed of light has indeed seemed to change over time. Probably relative to whatever the gravity/relativity effects were in proportion to the size of the universe at the time. Creationists can't prove 6kya, neither can Sciencists prove 13.7bya. 0 points.

4. Sciencists have pretty well proven evolution. Point goes to Sciencists.

5. We've seen stars in various stages of formation in nebulas. Point goes to Sciencists.

6. Stars and biology are not bound by the 2nd law, therefore the 2nd is at least partially crap. No proof of God being the reason, though. 0 points.

7. Cart before the horse. Sciencists +1

8. C14 dating is affected by environmental conditions. Creationists get a point.

Hey, it's IDW, once again jumping into a religion vs science thread to preach about his personal definitions of reality and the supernatural (which change every time he posts), twist everything everyone says so he can mock it and insult people no matter how civil they were being to him, and take five posts to "answer" one question with responses that neither answer the question nor make any sense.

Gordon Bennett:douchebag/hater: As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

People are free to believe whatever they want. That's fine.

The problem is that some of them are using political pressure to force schools to teach non-science in science class. I am not sure exactly why, it may have to do with their beliefs being threatened by scientific theory, or perhaps it is an attempt to hijack the reputation that science has earned over the past 500 years or so in order to lend credibility to their religious beliefs. Either way it doesn't matter. Creationism, intelligent design, or whatever you may want to call it this week isn't quantifiable, it isn't science, and it doesn't belong in science class any more than a discussion on quadratic equations belongs in a class on medieval English literature.

if those ideas are to be taught then they need to go on topic, as part of a comprehensive course on philosophy and critical analysis.

Which is, incidentally, where it was covered in my school, more or less. In philosophy class. It wasn't about the development of life specifically, but the exact same statement about intelligence needed to explain the complexity of the universe was mentioned as one of several arguments from the Scholastics in the Middle Ages and Renaissance to prove the existence of God using logic and reason. Which, IMO, was perfectly acceptable as it wasn't represented as absolute fact or as science, but in its proper place as a part of the history of Western philosophy and as a basis to critically discuss the reasoning behind the various arguments.

So it's "500 years of scientific theory" right? Theory - not fact. As in, the data is absolute, but the interpretation of that data is the theory, right? An interpretation of the data is the philosophy of the person interpreting the data, right?

So, what if we teach both "versions" of creationism and let the students decide for themselves? And I do not mean - "the earth is 6000 years old." That is a literally extreme version of the events of the Bible. The first verse of the Bible - God created the heavens and the earth, and subsequent verses, may not necessarily mean that everything was created it six days. How do we know how long a day was? In fact, scientists even say that the early earth had shorter days than we do now. So if the length of a day has been different thoughout the life of the earth, how do we know long long a day actually was? Or even, what the definition of a day was? To us, a day is defined as "24 hours."

Science has been wrong just as much as it has been right. That's why philosophic scientists come up with theories first, and let them be proved by other scientists.

Believing something is not the same as shouting it on the street and getting people who think the same things as you to go into political office to change the law to match your belief and preaching everywhere about it.

Atheists just want you to stop forcing what you believe onto others.

If you were doing that then nobody would hear about your beliefs to reply to them in ways you don`t like.

Gordon Bennett:I am not sure exactly why, it may have to do with their beliefs being threatened by scientific theory, or perhaps it is an attempt to hijack the reputation that science has earned over the past 500 years or so in order to lend credibility to their religious beliefs. Either way it doesn't matter.

Subconsciously they fear science, for as you say, it challenges their faith(and wins when you get down to it), or rather, the explanations they've been taught that support their faith. Whatever, you got the sentiment right. Also works consciously(they see information as an attack), almost like a learned paranoia.

Anyway, that's pretty self explanatory if you're in the right frame of mind. The following is what I find truly interesting.

It's also a holdover from, well, really, when religion got it's start. If I lie and tell you I have knowledge X or power y, in order to garner power and respect and to get you to do my bidding.....and if you believe it...well, the obvious danger to my gained status is you learning otherwise. So, to retain that power, I've got to keep contrary factual information from you.

It's psychologically/socially genius of course, it has become a self sustaining action, the religious, even those with absolutely zero power, employ the forced ignorance technique.

In that way, religion is a marvel. Sure, people like suicide bomber recruiters have an easy time of it, befriend a troubled youth and give him hope that the desperate and weak will latch onto. That's an ugly and crude trick really, but to build a set of rules that will self perpetuate like that is a fine work of art. Sure, some of it is the act of indoctrination of children, but much of it is in the structure of the religion itself.

On that note, and here is where it get's crazy. Ever read Rant from Chuck Phalanuik(however the hell you spell his name)?He notes that parents teach their kids how to believe. Things like santa, the bogey man, etc, it's all conditioning / priming. He does not take it quite so far as to say it's priming them for religion, but you can almost hear him type it, and then hit backspace, it's that close to what he's saying.

It's a sort of messed up book and neat things like that come in tiny portions, with an odd backdrop, mysticism mixed with sci-fi and dystopia, and it's in an odd format.(as if it's a bunch of answers from interviews and snippets from oral stories) It's a fun read if you can handle it. (Also gets to "gross out" stages, kind of assures that no christians will read it talking about, well, I don't want to push the limits of fark..., i certainly don't have sensitive proprieties but it gets dirrrty and I'd rather keep my posting privelages)

"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Anyone: "what was God doing before creation?"St. Augustine: "God was preparing Hell for people who ask such questions."

But really, if you're going to go with "The God of the Gaps," why not ask why "If life on Earth was so complicated that it could not have sprung up without a greater being creating it, then what created God, whom I assume is a bit more complex? Follow through with it.

Kurmudgeon:None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.False comparison is false.Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

These are the creationists.I took this at the Creation Museum near the Cincinnati Airport. Obviously there's enough of these people to support a whole museum. This one is my personal favorite.I've got plenty more where that came from, too.

None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.False comparison is false.Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

Flappyhead:Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover. Oh, and then it got creamed by Kenneth Miller, PhD. and practicing Catholic.

Less than 10 pct of the Christians in the world believe that the Bible must be literally true. The VAST majority of them live in North America. .

The other 90 pct seem to coexist with evolution just fine, although there are various levels of discomfort.